Lancet-1 study vindicated by NEJM/WHO study?

[Elind]

It's somewhat academic now, what with Lancet-1 being so old. I just wanted some input on how the numbers add up between that study and the new one published in NEJM.

We could be here 'till 2009 debating the finer points of samplings or evaluating potential liars in "surveys". My point was simply that there are plenty of places comparably dangerous, or more so, but for different reasons. Trying to blame the failings of immature cultures on outside influences alone is itself immature.

Yes, it's politically important. Which is why there have been so many threads in the politics section.

It's politically popular would be more accurate; particularly in the different spins that can be applied. From what I read I'd rather visit Iraq (some parts anyway) before Venezuela, but Chaves appeals to those who have a beef with the US, and so far they haven't figured out how to blame that goon on the US, but eventually they probably will.

Better to have democracy, which is why it would be better for America to stop supporting dictators. It's still doing so with Mubarak, Musharaff and the Saudis.

That's dumb. I think we've been here before. Another vacuous statement without any relevance to reality. Give us a some proposals here from the Islamic FireGarden, please. Stop buying oil? Invade them all? Screw Mubarak and let the Taliban take over, then invade? Please, something approximating intelligence, please and while you're at it; tell us again how Islam is compatible with democracy.

 

[a_unique_person]

We invaded Europe in WW2 knowing that tens of thousands of innocent civilians would be killed during the invasion. Should we not have invaded?

The US was on Hitler's list, for one thing. Hitler was in an expansionist phase. Saddam had been effectively knackered.

 

[Elind]

Saddam had been effectively knackered.

Always uniquely naive. In my universe the direction was towards letting him loose again. By now he would have had much worse weapons than he ever did, all thanks to your kind of thoughtfulness. I make that rationalization based on clear and obvious evidence of past behavior. You base your fantasy on what?

 

[Kestrel]

The US was on Hitler's list, for one thing. Hitler was in an expansionist phase. Saddam had been effectively knackered.

Anyone who has a sense of history should have realized that. Iraq's military forces had never been rebuilt after the Gulf War. They had no air force and tanks kept alive by taking apart other tanks for parts.

 

[Elind]

Anyone who has a sense of history should have realized that. Iraq's military forces had never been rebuilt after the Gulf War. They had no air force and tanks kept alive by taking apart other tanks for parts.

So what does that have to do with what he would have been capable of once his cage was opened. $100 oil would have suited him just fine by now.

 

[Kestrel]

So what does that have to do with what he would have been capable of once his cage was opened. $100 oil would have suited him just fine by now.

Without the Iraq war, would we be having $100 oil?

 

[a_unique_person]

So what does that have to do with what he would have been capable of once his cage was opened. $100 oil would have suited him just fine by now.

why the rush? Couldn't he have been left till Afghanistan was stabilised to some degree? Instead, Rummy was a loose cannon, ready to invade on any pretext.

 

[BeAChooser]

The US was on Hitler's list, for one thing.

Let's be real. There is no way that Hitler could have launched a successful invasion against the US. Not across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans given the state of technology at that time. We invaded Europe to support our allies and markets. Just as we invaded Iraq to support allies and markets.

And a good case can be made that the US was on Saddam's list.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

A good case can be made that Saddam was aiding terrorists here and abroad.

Hitler was in an expansionist phase.

And Saddam still wanted to dominate the Middle East. With WMD and terrorism ...

Saddam had been effectively knackered.

Only as long as the sanctions and oversight were in place. Had we not invaded, can there be any real doubt that both would have been dismantled within a very short time. He was already making big oil and arms deals with the non-coalition nations. And we know now that Saddam fully intended to reconstitute his WMD arsenal ... in all its forms ... as soon as possible once the sanctions and oversight ended. And we know now that Saddam was working very closely with terrorists before the war and still had ambitions to be the regions political and military leader. There's no reason to think that would have changed had he remained in power. And with plenty of oil resources (which even Hitler didn't have) ...

 

[BeAChooser]

Anyone who has a sense of history should have realized that. Iraq's military forces had never been rebuilt after the Gulf War. They had no air force and tanks kept alive by taking apart other tanks for parts.

Before the 2003 invasion, Saddam was busy negotiating secret deals with non-coalition countries like Germany and Russia to rearm with the expectation (on both sides) that the sanctions and oversight would soon end. They wanted his oil. They wanted his market. And speaking of a sense of history, you should keep in mind how long it took Hitler to go from no army to an army that almost conquered half the world. And Hitler initially had no access to a cash cow ... like what may be the largest oil reserves in the world.

 

[BeAChooser]

Without the Iraq war, would we be having $100 oil?

Iraq isn't the reason we have $100 oil.

It's the growing usage of China (and the rest of the world) at the same time that global oil reserves may be starting to fall.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501041025-725174,00.html "China's oil imports doubled over the past five years and surged nearly 40% in the first half of 2004 alone. These increases vaulted the mainland ahead of Japan and into second place among the world's biggest oil consumers, behind only the U.S. ... But with oil in short supply currently, producers are pumping just 1 million barrels more than the 81 million barrels being consumed worldwide every daygrowing demand from China is clearly having an unwelcome impact. The country accounted for about one-third of the increase in world oil consumption this year, more than any other single nation."

 

[FireGarden]

But you were trying to claim that the reason NEJM's numbers are lower than John Hopkins is that they didn't sample Anbar as well.

I was suggesting a reason for the difference in proportion of violent deaths. NEJM used IBC data for the most violent parts of Iraq. Exactly how they used it? I don't know. Does it explain the difference? I don't know.

Wrong. I do understand what excess death means. Which is why the pre-war mortality number is so very, very important. Why are the poll based ones so starkly different from those based on UN, WHO and UNICEF studies before the war when records could have been examined?

I don't know.
NEJM estimates a doubling of death rate after the invasion. Lancet-2 estimated an increase of 2.4 times.

Why NEJM comes up with a pre-war death rate of about 3, I don't know. IFHS worked with WHO, by the way.

Then how can you give them any credibility?
[...] The point is that an unsourced data point is meaningless. You know NOTHING about it yet you accept it blindly.

Yes, you're right. I should never trust the CIA. After all... What do they know about analysing data?

But WHY was it an outlier? They didn't really try to understand that question or wonder whether the same factors causing it to be an outlier might also have affected their other results.

Read the traffic example again. And again.
When you can understand why the data from the bus is an outlier, then you will have learned something.

But WHY did they drop the two most violent data points if they were trying to be more precise?

Why would they leave out the higher numbers if their motives were all political and they wanted the final number to be as high as possible?

The most obvious reason for the high numbers in Fallujah would be the military action. Fallujah saw a lot more of it.

Really? The Iranians forced 9 and 10 year old boys into Iraqi mine fields in order to clear them for their soldiers. And who do you think has been behind many of bombings against civilian targets in Iraq and other terrorist attacks around the world?

BS

Just curious. What country are you posting from?

Britain, America's whore.

Well Table 2 in the NEJM article ("Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006, January 31, 2008) shows the percentage of deaths after invasion for all ages and indicates that deaths due to injuries (i.e., the sum of intentional, armed conflict, road accidents and unintentional) comprise 23.2 percent of the deaths. Intentional and armed conflict comprised 60.4 percent of the 23.2 percent total. That works out to 14 percent of all deaths being due to intentional violence. Compared to Lancet 1's claimed 59 percent. As I said.

Read table 3:
death rate (all causes) changes from 3.17 to 6.01
death rate (violent) changes from 0.10 to 1.09

The death rate went up by about 3,
the violent death rate went up by about 1

So about 1/3 of the increase is due to violence.

"Science 20 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 355 "Iraq Mortality Study Authors Release Data, but Only to Some, Jocelyn Kaiser"

Your claim was that they hadn't released the data. They have released the data. To claim the data indicates fraud, you have to argue that everyone who has received the data is willing to keep quiet.



Many surveys in Iraq get high response rates. Including NEJM.

That source say nothing about the percentage of death certificates handed out by doctors and not reported to higher authorities.

It indicates that passive recording of deaths is not accurate in war zones. If you wait for the report of the death to reach you, then you don't hear about all the deaths.

 

[FireGarden]

That's dumb.

Of course it is.
Care to explain how supporting dictators helps spread democracy?

I think we've been here before. Another vacuous statement without any relevance to reality. Give us a some proposals here from the Islamic FireGarden, please.

Unlike Obama, I have no problem being mistaken for a Muslim. I'm an atheist, however.

Please, something approximating intelligence, please and while you're at it;

A trillion dollar donation towards industry throughout the developing world would make America look a heck of a lot nicer than a trillion dollar war.

Instead of buying friends, America has bought enemies. But we've had this discussion before: They hate you because you're free. Or because their religion tells them to be friends with communists and atheists but not Americans.

tell us again how Islam is compatible with democracy.

Muslims are people and democracy is rule by the people. I would have thought that was obvious. But maybe I haven't taken into account the America version of democracy... Where if you vote for un-American policies then you aren't a democrat.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's be real. There is no way that Hitler could have launched a successful invasion against the US. Not across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans given the state of technology at that time. We invaded Europe to support our allies and markets. Just as we invaded Iraq to support allies and markets.

Hitler had research on nukes, ballistic missiles and the America Bomber. All the research scientists were snapped up by the allies after the war.

And a good case can be made that the US was on Saddam's list.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

Saddam wanted power most of all, and he didn't want the US taking it from him.

A good case can be made that Saddam was aiding terrorists here and abroad.



And Saddam still wanted to dominate the Middle East. With WMD and terrorism ...



Only as long as the sanctions and oversight were in place. Had we not invaded, can there be any real doubt that both would have been dismantled within a very short time. He was already making big oil and arms deals with the non-coalition nations. And we know now that Saddam fully intended to reconstitute his WMD arsenal ... in all its forms ... as soon as possible once the sanctions and oversight ended. And we know now that Saddam was working very closely with terrorists before the war and still had ambitions to be the regions political and military leader. There's no reason to think that would have changed had he remained in power. And with plenty of oil resources (which even Hitler didn't have) ...

Saddam was still a lunatic, power hungry dictator, but given he was effectively restrained, and the known consequences were that Iraq would descend into deadly chaos (Powell said it would 'shatter like a crystal', and opposed the invasion privately), the best outcome was the status quo. Especially considering the war in Afghanistan. War on two fronts, anyone?

Apart from that, it creates a dangerous precedent. One country can capriciously invade another, without good grounds for doing so, (the whole WMD fiasco has seriously damaged America's standing), with Rummy wanting to go somewhere where there are good targets to bomb, (since Afghanistan didn't have any). Scary stuff.

 

[Elind]

Without the Iraq war, would we be having $100 oil?

Most probably yes, even without considering what Saddam himself would have been manipulating to ensure it got there. The factors behind the price of oil are much broader than just Iraq.

 

[Elind]

why the rush? Couldn't he have been left till Afghanistan was stabilised to some degree? Instead, Rummy was a loose cannon, ready to invade on any pretext.

Yes, other scenarios are possible, and if you've been paying attention you'll be aware I'm no fan of Bush & Co.

However, am I imagining that you are suggesting that Saddam "might" have had to be dealt with militarily, again? What pretexts would you have liked to see? How about a reconstituted WMD program by 2008?

As to linking Afghanistan and Iraq, the only real linkage that is clear is the strain on the US military. What do you care? (Surely you don't suggest the Jihadists would like us better if we took them on just one at a time?)

 

[Elind]

Of course it is.
Care to explain how supporting dictators helps spread democracy?

Care to explain how you would go about deposing them and installing true democracies in cultures that are incompatible with democracy, as we understand it? You might be surprised that Saudi is probably more "democratic" than Iraq ever was. How about some substance when you you make such vacuous statements?

Unlike Obama, I have no problem being mistaken for a Muslim. I'm an atheist, however.

I've heard you say that before and I don't believe you for many reasons that I gave before. I think you are a Muslim mole.

A trillion dollar donation towards industry throughout the developing world would make America look a heck of a lot nicer than a trillion dollar war.

Well, it would look a lot nicer in my pocket for sure, but as far as temporarily buying off the jerk nations of the planet, forget it.

Instead of buying friends, America has bought enemies. But we've had this discussion before: They hate you because you're free. Or because their religion tells them to be friends with communists and atheists but not Americans.

Ahh soh. You believe in buying friends do you? Still wet behind the ears I think.

Muslims are people and democracy is rule by the people. I would have thought that was obvious. But maybe I haven't taken into account the America version of democracy... Where if you vote for un-American policies then you aren't a democrat.

That latter sentence is garbage, and proves you don't understand democracy, or listen to too many talk shows where they don't either. Saudis think they are democratic, according to their traditions. The ruling family actually rules at the pleasure of the various tribes within a system that does "vote", just not by women, or the man in the street, but even "he" in the abstract will confess an allegiance and deference to the elders of "his" particular tribe and how they vote. We call them party "delegates" here. They have found a stable, so far, system that works for them and only when the oil runs out will they start killing each other just like all other tribal systems do.

 

[Kestrel]

Most probably yes, even without considering what Saddam himself would have been manipulating to ensure it got there. The factors behind the price of oil are much broader than just Iraq.

Another factor in $100 oil is the dropping value of the US dollar due to the huge US budget deficit. Spending on the war in Iraq is one reason we have a huge deficit.

 

[Elind]

Another factor in $100 oil is the dropping value of the US dollar due to the huge US budget deficit. Spending on the war in Iraq is one reason we have a huge deficit.

Since oil is priced in dollars, so far, the exchange rate has a short term effect in dollar price, but the US deficit in itself does not affect demand. The primary reason is simply supply and demand. We have reached the tipping point on the planet, where known reserves are diminishing rapidly and no significant new finds are known, and global demand has increased past the supply capability.

If we reach a global recession demand should ease somewhat and price will ease, temporarily, but Iraq has only the potential to affect short term pricing, as when a pipeline or two is blown up.

 

[Kestrel]

Before the 2003 invasion, Saddam was busy negotiating secret deals with non-coalition countries like Germany and Russia to rearm with the expectation (on both sides) that the sanctions and oversight would soon end. They wanted his oil. They wanted his market. And speaking of a sense of history, you should keep in mind how long it took Hitler to go from no army to an army that almost conquered half the world. And Hitler initially had no access to a cash cow ... like what may be the largest oil reserves in the world.

Comparing the threat of Iraq in 2003 to Germany in 1939 is rather silly.

Iraq has a population of 27 million compared to 300 million in the US.
Even after an economic boom in Iraq, their GDP would still be a small fraction of ours.

Back in 1939, the population and economic power of Germany was roughly the same as England and France combined.

 

[Elind]

Apart from that, it creates a dangerous precedent. One country can capriciously invade another, without good grounds for doing so, (the whole WMD fiasco has seriously damaged America's standing), with Rummy wanting to go somewhere where there are good targets to bomb, (since Afghanistan didn't have any). Scary stuff.

There were very good grounds for invading Iraq, just like there are good grounds for invading North Korea or Zimbabwe and many other trash territories rules by despots; but of course only if you have a genuine desire to free oppressed peoples and know how to recognize them, and of course the real biggie; if you know how to execute the plan to the end. Obvious Bush & Co. are of the opinion that since the only Iraqis that they ever met had US college educations, they think all of them are just like us and read Jefferson in their spare time, not to mention yearning to worship Jesus.

Stupid. (not a reference to you; this time )